Opinion - What the end of the Houthi campaign means for US power
Rough Rider commenced on March 15, 2025 because the Houthis threatened to attack Israeli shipping in the Red Sea if the Gaza ceasefire broke down. On May 7, hours after Trump suspended U.S. operations, Houthi spokesman Mohammed Abdulsalam repeated exactly the same threat against Israel and 'Israeli ships.'
This perfect circle makes one ask: Did the U.S. just conduct a thousand airstrikes, spend about a billion dollars, and lose eight drones and two F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft for nothing? Worse yet, did the U.S. blink in a staring match with a tiny adversary, signaling weakness to great power competitors like China? Or, as 'restrainers' such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) promptly noted, has the U.S. just pragmatically extracted itself from a potential quagmire where it never should have been in the first place?
The Trump administration was never united on the issue of Rough Rider, as the leaked Signal conversation underlined. The chief 'restrainer,' Vice President JD Vance, struggled to find direct U.S. trade interests to post-facto justify the U.S. pressure campaign against the Houthis. Being that the Houthis were never going to fold to U.S. military pressure — just as they did not submit to 20 years of non-stop combat against the Yemeni government and Gulf States — it was a matter of time before the U.S. sought a face-saver to back out of the fight.
Almost from the outset, Trump and his team repeatedly stressed their willingness to end the operation if the Houthis would return to the status quo ante bellum — the exact same circumstances as before Rough Rider began. Masters at seizing the narrative, the Houthis are already convincingly portraying the U.S.-sought ceasefire as a U.S. defeat.
For all the doom and gloom, the operation has done some good. Fifty-two days of U.S. airstrikes delivered long-overdue 'mowing of the grass' of Iran-provided missiles, drones, radars and air defenses in Yemen, plus the military industries and technicians needed to build and maintain them.
The reality, however, is that all of this can be rebuilt, possibly within a year, unless Iran is prevented from rearming the Houthis by sea and via smuggling routes in eastern Yemen and Oman. The Houthis have a long track record of using such ceasefires to break the momentum of enemy efforts, recover, and then return to the offensive — overrunning domestic opponents, seeking to seize oil and gas sites in Yemen's east, and demonstrating their ability to threaten international shipping — except, of course, ships from their partners in China and Russia.
The Houthis are playing the long game, and so should the U.S. If Israel is to be left to face the Houthis alone, Washington should quietly provide it with all the targeting intelligence needed to keep mowing the grass. U.S. drones should continue to overfly Yemen to 'trust but verify' that the Houthis are not preparing to strike U.S. forces. The U.S. should sustain its closer watch over Iranian efforts to rearm the Houthis.
In addition, under the auspices of U.S. Central Command, draw together the Yemeni government, Saudis, Egyptians, Israelis, Emiratis and Omanis to create a Red Sea security group in which the U.S. is merely a convener, observer and enabler. Stress to all these parties that, should the Houthis threaten them, a collective defensive effort will be activated to provide missile and drone defense, much as Israel was protected twice from Iranian attacks in 2024.
Most important, the U.S. should work to coordinate these partners to strengthen governance and ports in the non-Houthi parts of Yemen, where the UN-recognized government loosely rules. U.S. and Israeli attacks on ports and airports mean that other parts of Yemen — and land borders to the Gulf States — must now carry the burden of importing food and fuel, and they must do so without being intimidated by the Houthis. At very little cost and with practically no U.S. presence, Yemeni forces can be built into a counterweight to the Houthis on the ground, to contain their threat and incentivize Houthi involvement in the Saudi-driven peace process in Yemen.
What does not kill the Houthis makes them stronger, and they will get much stronger if the U.S. now washes its hands of Yemen. In a brutal reckoning, the Trump administration was smart to extract itself from endless bombing of the Houthis. They can now be smarter than prior U.S. administrations by recognizing that there are median options between all-in and all-out. That means convening under one umbrella the forces that want to end the Yemen war and contain the Houthis, all while keeping the Suez Canal open and creating the stability needed to supercharge U.S.-Gulf economic partnership.
Michael Knights is the Jill and Jay Bernstein Fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He visited all the frontlines in Yemen during multiple trips in 2017 and 2018 and is the author of two books and numerous reports on the Yemen war.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Smoky air should not become a permanent hallmark of Chicago summers
We're more than two-thirds of the way through Chicago's meteorological summer, and so far when the weather hasn't been suffocatingly hot and humid, it's featured air that's dangerous for too many of us to breathe. Sweltering conditions are a normal part of summer in Chicago — some years more so than others, of course — but when the winds blow from the north, Chicagoans are supposed to be able to breathe a sigh of relief and head for the tennis courts or the baseball/softball diamonds or the bike trails. Or, at the very least, their patios and porches. For the past three years, that temperature relief has been accompanied by plumes of smoke from wildfires raging all the summer long in Canada. The end of last week's heat wave brought daily warnings of poor air quality, with Chicago tabbed Thursday as having the worst air quality in the entire world. The warnings continued through most of the weekend. For many, the conditions made our eyes itchy and were just sort of bothersome. But for those who suffer from asthma and other pulmonary ailments, the air was downright hazardous. If this situation were a one-off — just a uniquely awful set of circumstances north of the border — we'd be inclined to give Canada a pass. But this is becoming a regular ordeal, and it's time people who can do something about it acknowledge the issue — and act. That means Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who took office earlier this year and will have no such excuses next summer. That also means President Donald Trump. We mention our president because he has spent much of his first six months in office bullying and trolling Canada over trade, national defense and whether that sovereign nation ought to become just another U.S. state. We've criticized Trump for treating one of this country's most stalwart friends on the world stage as an adversary. Among other things, the natural offense Canadians have taken to Trump's provocations and threats has led many to boycott travel to the U.S. One look at Las Vegas' underwhelming summer traffic suggests this needless antagonism with Canada is costing the U.S. directly. We'd love to see Trump abandon his self-defeating economic battle with Canada over products such as lumber and focus instead on a Canadian export that truly is damaging America — wildfire smoke. A large swath of the U.S. — essentially the entire Upper Midwest, including states such as Wisconsin and Michigan that were key to Trump's 2024 victory — is enduring unacceptable health and other risks because of these blazes. While wildfires are common in Canada given that vast geographic territory's abundance of unsettled areas, it's only been in recent years that the conflagrations have grown so large. Unlike the U.S., which long has supported a substantial force to fight wildfires, primarily in the West, Canada's firefighters are mainly focused on blazes in municipalities. Essentially, Canada has said it doesn't have the capacity to battle these wildfires before they get so out of control that they must burn themselves out or rage on for months until the seasons change. The U.S. has sent hundreds of firefighters to help in recent years, but the efforts haven't been sufficient. This is not a new summertime status quo to which Chicagoans and other Upper Midwesterners simply should be told to get accustomed. It's unacceptable and should be treated as such. We're not saying that solving a problem driven by large-scale climatic changes is simple — or cheap. There's a reason Canada isn't equipped like the U.S. to battle fires sparked in wilderness areas. Our neighbor to the north hasn't needed the capability in the past. It does now. To be fair, the United States has faced its own reckoning with increasingly destructive wildfires, especially in the West. But we've built up a robust federal firefighting infrastructure over decades in response — something Canada is only now beginning to consider on a national scale. What's needed is for leaders to make this scourge a priority. Where there's a will there's a way, especially given the wealth held in North America. Surely, in coming summers, the U.S. could contribute expertise and even personnel while Canada invests in early detection and extinguishment of these fires. In return, Trump could drop his trade-related threats and demands and focus on a U.S.-Canadian problem that directly affects millions of American lives. How about if both countries committed to action that truly would be beneficial on both sides of the border? A win-win. What a novel concept.


Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: What began as a war against Hamas has turned into the starvation of an entire people
How many more images of starving children must we see before we, as a nation and as people of conscience, speak with moral clarity about what is happening in Gaza? What began as a campaign against Hamas has become something far more harrowing. We are witnessing the deliberate starvation of civilians, the destruction of homes, the suffocation of hope. The Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has crossed a line — from war to widespread humanitarian atrocity. This is not just a military operation. It is a policy of deprivation, displacement and collective punishment. Food and water are cut off. Aid is obstructed. Families are left to scavenge while their children wither from hunger. This is a stain on our shared humanity. Dare we acknowledge the echoes of history? We say 'never again' with solemnity, but here we are — watching the deliberate denial of food and medical care to a trapped population. The difference is that this time, the suffering is being inflicted by a state that should know too well the horrors of systemic dehumanization. And still, many hesitate to speak out. Let us be clear. Condemning the Netanyahu government's policies is not antisemitic — it is moral. It is necessary. Silence in the face of starvation, particularly of children, is complicity. We must find the courage to separate political fear from human truth. This is not about geopolitical alliances or partisanship. This is about children. About families. About the simple, undeniable truth that no government has the right to bomb civilians into submission or starve them into silence. History is watching. Our moral integrity is being tested. Will we fail this test?I've read many articles about the horrendous conditions in Gaza. War is always a tragedy for all involved, particularly when one side has clearly lost but continues to fight — causing more destruction and loss of life than necessary. In looking at history, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered long after it had become clear that the Confederacy had lost the war. Likewise, Adolf Hitler's Germany surrendered to the Allied forces only after the destruction of Berlin, despite the successful invasion on D-Day and defensive offensive actions of the Russian army. If the Confederacy and Germany, both of which like Hamas started the wars at issue, had surrendered sooner, much less loss of life would have occurred, not to mention destruction of cities. Think of the loss and suffering that would have been avoided if Japan, which was given opportunities to surrender prior to U.S. nuclear bombs being dropped, had done so. War is complicated, and each side has positions that are entrenched in nationalism and sadly strong emotions such as greed, hate and racism. Still, history shows that eventually it becomes clear to one side the cause is lost. It is time for Hamas to stop the suffering of the Palestinian people it claims to lead and protect. Hamas has lost the war. Thus, it is not, given the rules and construct of war, for Hamas to attempt to govern the terms of surrender. If Hamas would release the Israeli hostages and withdraw its forces from Gaza, what does it think Israel would do? Certainly, with all eyes on Israel at that point, Israel would be compelled to immediately provide aid, engage in reconstruction of Gaza and treat the Palestinian people with dignity. However, according to Israel's terms, this can only be accomplished once the threat of Hamas is eliminated from Gaza. Hamas must recognize it has lost, surrender and end the unimaginable suffering of its anyone know what the term 'unconditional surrender' means? It means that war is ugly. If Hamas wants to stop children from starving, it needs to surrender unconditionally. Ask Nazi Germany. Ask Japan. Our expert news reporters never ever mention this fact.I am one of the Jewish people painfully sad about the starvation and armed killing inflicted upon innocent Palestinians and their children by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his ultra-right coalition and his firepower orders to Israeli military forces. The increased antisemitism in this country is, in effect, mostly anti-Netanyahu-ism. His original response to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of Israelis and others certainly was expected — a death penalty for the Palestinian terrorists who make even their own people suffer. But he has carried on the Gaza assault for so long and indiscriminately that it has stricken an unthreatening population to the extent that it is considered a genocide by Israeli human rights groups. There are several other unfortunate factors in this ungodly situation. First of all, there is really no chance to totally kill off a hate-filled faction such as Hamas. Also, Netanyahu and his formidable intelligence team were unprepared for the Oct. 7 horror, although the danger always was warned. And it took hours before Netanyahu had his forces respond. Before this happened, a majority of Israelis would have voted an unpopular Netanyahu out of office over the corruption charges against him. The war with Hamas changed all that. For many years, Netanyahu has refused to accept a two-state solution. So he is at the root of this problem; the current part of it devastating beyond strength in numbers, and Arab states have taken a positive step to stop the carnage in Gaza Everyone wants the war in Gaza to end, especially Israel. Many wonder why the media and the noisy protesters at American universities seem to understand how to bring the war to a conclusion. I've yet to read or hear of anyone talking about Hamas laying down its weapons. If its fighters lay down their weapons, the war is over. Moral responsibility for protecting children from starvation is in the hands of Hamas, which started this front-page headline in the July 29 Tribune trumpets: 'Trump pushing Israel on Gaza aid.' Really? President Donald Trump has supposedly been 'pressuring' Israel for a long time, with no results. Trump generally doesn't hesitate to threaten other countries, as demonstrated by his tariff war. If he was actually pushing Israel, he could simply threaten to terminate our aid, as he did so publicly with Ukraine. But he won't because he and Israel likely are on the same page. It's called plausible David L. Applegate's letter to the editor ('Higher ed's liberal bias,' Aug. 1): Applegate defends Donald Trump's withholding of federal funds to force universities to abandon a perceived left-leaning bias. What Applegate's argument fails to note is that the initial attacks on the universities were based on an 'emergency' of antisemitism as declared by the president. After such declaration, draconian measures have been threatened and executed. In the past, standard procedures were used to handle allegations of antisemitism, such as letting the institution know; asking them to address the claims, if found to be legitimate; and giving the university time to address the incident. If these avenues were not taken to the liking of the government, additional steps might be taken. Trump deemed himself investigator, judge and jury, jumping almost immediately to 'atomic bomb' measures. Even worse, though, is piggybacking the unreasonable demands about who universities can hire to teach, what they can teach and who they can teach. This has nothing to do with antisemitism. It is just a ruse to force age-old, right-wing ideals on universities they don't like. If you want your kids to learn in a right-wing environment, send them to schools that embrace that ideology. Simple as that. Trump's tactics are winding through the courts. Hopefully some or all of it will be deemed unlawful. One can hope.


Chicago Tribune
5 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Daniel DePetris: Taiwan's president is not having an easy time of it at home or with the US
With the exception of Israel, no foreign entity elicits as much bipartisan support in Washington as Taiwan. The self-ruled democratic island is David to China's Goliath, a relatively small pseudo-country (the United States and much of the world don't recognize Taiwan as a state) under constant threat from the Chinese Communist Party that has long striven to reunify the island with mainland China. If anything, Chinese President Xi Jinping is even more intent on reunification than his predecessors, ordering the People's Liberation Army to have the military assets in place to invade Taiwan by 2027. But that's only the half of it for Taiwan's political leadership. While Taipei's relations with the United States remain strong at an institutional level, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te has faced multiple speed bumps, internally and externally, that have raised alarms among Taiwan experts back in Washington. A highly polarized Taiwanese political scene, coupled with an unpredictable Donald Trump administration, has led to the fundamental question: Can Taiwan afford a business-as-usual mentality? Internally, Taiwanese politicians are at one another's throats. Lai's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is at loggerheads with the main opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT) and the upstart Taiwan People's Party over everything from the defense budget to the basic functions of how the Taiwanese government should work. Despite Lai's support for a hefty increase in military spending, partly due to the urgings of the Trump administration, the Legislative Yuan, dominated by the opposition, has stonewalled the request and in fact voted in January to freeze the defense budget by billions of dollars. Lai has called the parliament's actions a deliberate attempt to block his agenda; the opposition says it's merely an exercise in oversight. The DPP's frustrations with the KMT have boiled over. Sympathizers of the party organized a recall vote on one-fifth of the KMT's lawmakers, hoping voters will kick them out of office and replace them with DPP representatives. But the effort failed. Every KMT lawmaker survived the recall effort, which means that Lai will either be forced to work with the opposition to get anything passed in the legislature or spend the remainder of his term as a lame-duck leader. Then there are Trump's tariffs. On July 31, the White House announced a 20% tariff on Taiwanese goods entering the United States, part of Trump's global tariff regime in a bid — so he says — to inject fairness into the global trading system. Although Lai's administration played down the tariffs and called them a temporary aberration on the way to a trade deal, the levies will have at least a short-term impact on the Taiwanese economy. The United States is Taiwan's largest buyer of goods, having imported more than $116 billion in Taiwanese products last year. While it's likely Washington and Taipei will eventually strike an agreement lessening the tariff rate, it's going to take significant concessions on the Taiwanese side to move past the finish line. Those concessions will include throwing tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, of dollars into the United States over a long period of time in the form of investments. This is precisely what Japan and South Korea did to finalize their own trade deals with Washington, and it's something Taiwan will be hard-pressed to avoid. Even then, it might not mollify Trump; whenever he talks about Taiwan, Trump never ceases to remind people about how the island 'stole' America's chip-making business. Then there's the Trump administration decision to block Lai from traveling to the United States on his way to Central America. Such stops in the United States are quite common, with Lai's predecessor, Tsai Ing-wen, doing it multiple times. They've so common that Beijing isn't particularly shocked when they occur. Even so, stopovers in the United States by Taiwanese ministers, let alone presidents, always get China riled up because in Beijing's mind, they connote U.S. recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign state. Therefore, the White House's veto of Lai's travel schedule, in addition to the Pentagon's cancellation of defense talks with Taiwan's defense minister, will come as welcome signs to Xi. If Joe Biden as president had made a similar move, the Taiwanese political and security establishment would have rested easy, knowing that U.S. support was unquestionable. Can Taiwan assume this is the case now, particularly when Trump's priorities are finalizing a comprehensive trade accord with China and pushing U.S. allies around the world to do more for themselves on the defense front? Ultimately, the best policy for the United States is to drag out the status quo for as long as possible. This includes a number of key elements: China and Taiwan refrain from unilateral moves that could jeopardize the balance of power and heighten the odds of a cross-strait conflict; U.S. arms sales to Taiwan continue in keeping with U.S. law; Taipei stays away from declaring independence; and Washington makes it abundantly clear to Taiwan's political leadership that unhelpful actions breaking from the status quo could result in a change to U.S. policy. Regardless of what Washington does, it's on Taiwan — and Taiwan alone — to get its own house in order. The United States may be the best foreign friend it has, but not even a superpower can force Taiwan's politicians to pass legislation, ensure the defense budget is adequate for the times and get the machinery of government working again. Otherwise, nothing else that follows will matter.